[kimlelly]

But that's only a short-term solution.

Because decription is only a matter of the amount of resources you through behind, and:

1) Those resources become cheaper by the day

2) Technology, by definition, improves with exponential progression

3) A big central government has all the money it takes (from us, obviously)

[bnegreve]

I am not so sure: First Technology, doesn't improve with exponential progression by definition. This is just an empirical observation. Processors' frequency has stalled already. You can still increase the number of cores/processors/machines, but the amount of computation you can process surely doesn't scale linearly with the number of processing units (because of various overheads).

Secondly, because the number of people and the data they have to store also increase exponentially. Maybe they can decrypt someone's data but they cannot decrypt everyone's data. So if we all use encryption, they are pretty much lost because they won't know what to decrypt.

So I would say that encryption is pretty safe, but very impractical.

edit: To kimlelly, ok if AI is "short term" then I cannot disagree :) But, then is there a solution at all?

[kimlelly]

What I mean by "exponential progression by definition" is this:

We use technology to produce better technology.

That's the cycle that will go on as long as we exist.

It's by definition of exponential acceleration. In a few years, we will be creating technology based on real artificial intelligence.

[chrisbridgett]

It's not a short term solution if you scale the strength of the encryption against the 'cost' of decrypting it and the speed of the technology available.

[kimlelly]

But keep in mind that the NSA stores everything, just to be able to go "back in time", whenever it pleases them.

So, when you encrypt with today's algos, and it gets stored by the NSA, it will become cheaper for them to decrypt it with every month that passes, because they will be able to decrypt today's encryption with tomorrow's technology and financial means.

So in my eyes, that means we're pretty much f*cked without fundamental change.

[chrisbridgett]

That's very true/a good point. Stale information would be a lot less useful to them though. i.e. Encrypted conversation between two terrorists happens today, attack happens tomorrow, NSA learn about their conversation 5 years later when it's economical to decrypt.

I know this is beside the point though. What I mean to say, is what can be done other than encryption and using tor-like networks for anonymity?

Nobody can be sure that they are/n't being watched, period. Heck, if it wasn't for Edward Snowden we'd still be none the wiser.

Whose to say there aren't dozens of other programs in place that aren't in the public eye?

It's not like you can even opt-out of holding accounts with large tech companies targeted by PRISM since it's easy for them to just tap your network traffic through ISPs.

As long as there is a government, nobody can be sure whether we are or aren't being watched. What 'fundamental change' could be made that would stop this?

[kimlelly]

Lots of small governments with small budgets.

Instead of that 1 point-of-failure-and-corruption that we have today.

That way, "government" really belongs to those who it is supposed to serve: the People.

PS: "Decentralization" is the word I was looking for. Just like the Internet is supposed to be used, in order to remain sane.

[rolledover]

This. No government should be allowed to become so large in power that its people cannot rise against it. The government is for the people by the people. With all the greed and fear mongering, it just feels like it's not going to happen this way though...

[EliRivers]

There are encryption levels, practical to use, which require quantities like "all the energy in the universe" to brute force decrypt. Unless the NSA rewrites number theory (which is not impossible, I am forced to say, but it would be orders of magnitude more astonishing than anything we've ever seen them do) that should be pretty safe from brute-force decryption, leaving us only to worry about rubber hoses and leaving the password written on the fridge.

[dragonwriter]

> Unless the NSA rewrites number theory (which is not impossible, I am forced to say, but it would be orders of magnitude more astonishing than anything we've ever seen them do)

Not to minimize the magnitude of the acheivement here, but I do think the NSA exerts considerable effort to avoid being seen doing most of the things -- including the most astonishing things -- they do. Its a pretty key part of their mission.